City and police give conflicting testimony in Bridal Lounge license appeal; board pauses to review video

The Brookhaven Alcohol Board heard competing testimony on June 21 over whether Bridal Lounge operated with a dance floor and DJ booth during an April inspection — a disputed fact at the center of the establishment’s license suspension appeal. The city told the board the appellant’s notice of appeal acknowledged the presence of those features; police officers who participated in a joint fire‑safety and police detail said their documentation and body‑camera recordings show a dance floor and a DJ booth. The board paused the hearing so members could review video the appellant’s counsel said had not been produced in an open‑records response.

City representatives told the board the notice of appeal admitted the presence of a dance floor and DJ booth during the April inspection, and asked the board to uphold the suspension. The city’s statement described the presence of those structures as inconsistent with the premises’ licensed application and a violation of the applicable alcohol ordinance; no statutory citation was given on the record.

Fire Marshal Francisco Albizu, called to testify about life‑safety inspections, said the inspections he conducts focus on occupant load, egress and life‑safety features. Under oath he stated he did not observe a DJ booth or a dance floor at Bridal Lounge during his April visit. “No. I didn’t,” the marshal told the board when asked whether he saw those physical structures on the premises.

Two Brookhaven police sergeants who participated in the April night detail gave a different account. Sergeant Celeste Rausch, who said she volunteered for the detail as backup and to distribute a packet describing a change in operating hours, testified she observed a space she believed was a DJ booth and also observed what she described as a dance floor at Bridal Lounge. Sergeant Rausch also said officers encountered the odor of marijuana at one venue during the night but that they did not have visual confirmation of possession there. “The criminal activity that I encountered was the odor of marijuana,” Rausch said.

Sergeant Jake Kissel, the field supervisor for the detail, produced a memorandum he said he prepared shortly after the inspections listing the businesses visited and his observations. Kissel told the board his memo documents that Bridal Lounge and several other venues had both dance floors and DJ booths. “I documented that they had a dance floor as well as a DJ booth,” Kissel said. He also testified his city‑issued body camera was activated at each of the inspections.

Board members pressed witnesses on how the inspections were selected and conducted. Witnesses said police accompanied the fire marshal to provide security and to hand out the new ordinance packets; they described a nighttime detail that began around midnight and proceeded north on Buford Highway, visiting roughly 10–12 venues. The marshal gave a broader figure of about 1,400 inspections during his tenure but clarified that larger number as related to permit inspections, not the single nighttime detail.

Appellant counsel raised an open‑records objection, saying a May 11 request for records about Bridal Lounge did not produce video she expected to receive. The counsel asked to see the footage before the hearing continued; the board agreed to take a brief recess so staff could make the video available for review.

The hearing was paused to allow the board and counsel an opportunity to review the footage and any additional records; the transcript ends with the board returning from recess still in the process of reviewing the disputed material.

What happens next: The board has not announced a final ruling on the appeal. Members directed a short recess to review evidence that counsel said had not been produced in response to an open‑records request, and the hearing is expected to resume after that review.